Is the age of geniuses over?

[Anonymous No.13888844]

The history of mankind is marked and pervaded by the flashes of genius. Scientific progress was often not the result of cooperative projects, but the revolution of a few talents. Names such as Einstein, Leibniz or daVinci are still present in our cultural consciousness today. But all these geniuses have one thing in common: they have long been dead. Prominent "geniuses" of our time are Stephen Hawking or Bill Gates, both known for anything but their works. No Turing or Gauss, no Heisenberg or Euler is among us anymore. Even among the lesser known geniuses who are famous in their field, the best we get is the likes of Terence Tao. By no means untalented, but they just no longer contribute to the degree the men of the past were able to, since the breadth and depth of these fields of knowledge far exceed the capacities of any human being.

So, has the age of geniuses come to an end? I would say yes. But does this mean the times of one man revolutionizing the human consciousness is over too? Perhaps. But perhaps, this is the age of not the genius, but the age of the intellectually gifted. Of those who by all means who possess peak intelligence, but in well distributed, spread out fashion. Perhaps this age requires not extreme overspecialization in a certain kind of field such as physics or math for us to get anywhere, but people who are able to attain a general understanding of many kinds of fields of knowledge, and are able to synthesize them all.

[Anonymous No.13888859]

>>13888844
>midwit waxing on about "the age of geniuses," like it matters.
What makes you qualified to make your assertion?

[Anonymous No.13888862]

ok retard

[Anonymous No.13888922]

>>13888844

[Anonymous No.13888925]

>>13888862
>>13888859

don't listen to these pseuds, dysgenic collapse is real

[Anonymous No.13888928]

Its not a problem of IQ its a problem of incentives.
Are there less genius IQ people in the world?
Maybe I don't know
But these high IQ people are only interested in gaming the system.
For example pic related.
His IQ is 200. Yet he became a bouncer.
Why?
I guess he figured he could fuck bitches.
Back in the day when women didn't have rights and intellectual pursuit was seen as a Godly pursuit and patriotic he might have gone into an intellectual field but not anymore.
There is also the economy. All these geniuses came at a time when the economy was doing well and they didn't have to worry about money or came from a well off background.
There are many people with a background in science or math that are working for wallstreet doing quantitative analysis or coding.

[Anonymous No.13888931]

>>13888844
Geniuses usually are recognized as such after their death, aren't they?

[Anonymous No.13888937]

>>13888931
Geniuses of the past were very much recognized during their times. All the people mentioned in the OP were famous when they were still alive, some bordering on the level of superstars, such as Einstein.

[Anonymous No.13888948]

>>13888844
>the age of geniuses is ove-

[Anonymous No.13888979]

>>13888925
OP, what makes you qualified to make your assertion?

[Anonymous No.13888988]

>>13888859
>>13888979

[Anonymous No.13888994]

>>13888925
>don't listen to these pseuds, I'm the real epistemic authority
>without credentials
>on an anonymous forum

[Anonymous No.13889003]

>>13888844
no
t.genius

[Anonymous No.13889012]

>>13889003
What have been your groundbreaking discoveries so far that will lead to your name being echoed through the halls of human history

[Anonymous No.13889023]

>>13888988
OP, what makes you qualified to make your assertion?

[Anonymous No.13889030]

>>13888844
I believe a certain German gentleman has already pointed this out almost a 100 years ago.

[Anonymous No.13889044]

>>13888844
You have to try harder than that

[Anonymous No.13889062]

>>13889012
I discovered Watermelonium

[Anonymous No.13889071]

>>13888844
it's almost as if there's nothing left for western man to accomplish....

[Anonymous No.13889086]

>>13888844
it's not a lack of geniuses it's how Academia has focused on publish or perish. a genius can't spend decades working on their thesis they have to put something out every quarter, year, whatever which forces them to focus on simple projects they can get a result from quickly. Positive results are more likely to get published so they are further pushed into research they are reasonably certain will yeild such so more peer reviewed articles are just confirming knowledge. If you want to see the return of real genius the system needs to tolerate both failure and slower publishing which is counterintuitive to the business like mentality that has come to dominate our society. Universities and companies want a high ROI, governments don't want to look like they are wasting tax payer money. Failures often lead to new discoveries and somethings need more than a year of research to be full developed though and until that is acceptable you'll be stuck with this surface level midwit academia not because there aren't geniuses but because they aren't allowed to use their genius.

[Anonymous No.13889189]

>>13889086
I'm not sure if I qualify as a genius, but my IQ consistently tests in the 145-160 range. I am in my mid 20s now and my experience has been the following: Be naturally good at math, finish a year early, go to university, do a math B.Sc. followed by a Ph.D. Had the choice between staying at university as an adjunct (shitty pay for teaching undergrads and slaving away for professors) or wageslaving and at least earning decent money. Worked 40 to 60 hours weeks in finance, then in CS. Hated my life, got depressed. Went back to university to study philosophy, because I did not know what else to do. Now I'm stuck in the same situation again, I have no idea what to do with my life. I'm not particularly attractive either, nor have been born into wealth and power, so there is no way for me to obtain social gains.

Everywhere I look it is 2 choices: to either become part of the dysfunctional academic bureaucracy or to slave away for our market economy. I could've probably made use of my intelligence, if I was given the means to, but as it stands, it's practically useless. There is nothing I have contributed to human society that is worthwhile, and I presently cannot imagine a way of life that would allow me to do that, despite becoming a social recluse. Artists and monks probably have a more fulfilled and yet also more productive existence than me, despite my genius IQ. What do I do with my life, Anon? Is it really just hopeless?

[Anonymous No.13889208]

>>13888844
No because I am yet to perfect philosophy and derive an ought from an is by using a deontology of nonbeing to support an ethic of antisentience/antinatalism.

[Anonymous No.13889274]

>>13889189
>I could've probably made use of my intelligence, if I was given the means to
>My circumstances are why I'm not great
The world is full of educated derelicts.

[Anonymous No.13889285]

>>13889274
>The world is full of educated derelicts.
I am openly admitting to being one. That is the essence of my post. I do not know how to be better or where to go from here and what to do.

[Anonymous No.13889291]

>>13889274
Name a great figure since the World Wars.
>>13889189
What's your philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13889298]

>>13889189
Solve P versus NP

[Anonymous No.13889310]

>>13889291
>What's your philosophy?
I studied German philosophy from Kant to Heidegger and my interests lie predominantly in metaphysics, aesthetics and philosophy of religion. Philosophy of language and mathematics are side interests (I enjoy Wittgenstein a lot, but analytic philosophy is a brain disease).

>>13889298
Jester.

[Anonymous No.13889332]

>>13889310
I'm serious. Someone has to, it might as well be you. As a side effect, you'll have proved OP wrong that the age of geniuses is over.

I proved p=np when I was in the shower once before but forgot the last step while I was drying my balls

[Anonymous No.13889333]

>>13888948
He is very smart though, Ive learned so much philosophy from him over my 5 years of viewing him.

[Anonymous No.13889402]

>>13888922
>Dawkins
the guy had like one good idea in the 70s
>Krauss
literally who
>Bill Nye
Bill Nye the Bachelor of Engineering
>Tyson
a literal negro

[Anonymous No.13889487]

>>13889402
That's the point retard

[Anonymous No.13889498]

Psuedointellectual thread. Do something useful.

[Anonymous No.13889506]

>>13889498
Such as?

[Anonymous No.13889522]

Most smart people these days have acquired useful irreplaceable skills, thanks to which they get paid a lot of money for.

[Anonymous No.13889651]

>>13889522
This is that business mentality I was referring to earlier, "smart people" now invent new and exciting ways to track data to show people ads or manipulate stock prices.

[Anonymous No.13889725]

>>13888844
Hypersexuality prevents genius from manifesting. It's tough to do anything great when you are caught in the snare of sexual distraction one after another.

[Anonymous No.13889728]

>>13889522
>useful irreplaceable skills
Ah yes, such as coding stock market software or developing the latest iPhone.

[Anonymous No.13889759]

Well since the ancient Greeks there has been a trope amongst intellectuals that mankind and posterity is in decline

[Anonymous No.13889770]

>>13889759
there are two separate things happening there. The concept of an ancient golden age is way older than the greeks, the Egyptians had it, the Mesopotamians had it, the Inca and Aztecs too, all sorts of tribes everywhere around the world.

Specific historical civilizations declining is a different thing, and the ancient Greek civilization did in fact collapse.

[Anonymous No.13889798]

>>13889725
But the examples given did not imply that those geniuses didn't masturbate even though they did not take part in sexual intercourse. It's essentially the same thing if the retention of seminal fluids is the point, right?

[Anonymous No.13889804]

>>13889725
Michelangelo was a sodomite,

[Anonymous No.13889871]

>>13889725
It baffles my mind that contemporary science has found no evidence of any benefits to semen retention, seeing how it is an ancient practice.

[Anonymous No.13889884]

>>13889871
Nobody is going to fund that study. When the internet meme of nofap became a thing there were publications unironically calling it a Fascist movement.

[Anonymous No.13889894]

>>13889770
I guess in regards to specific historical civilizations, would you say there is more eschatological anxiety expressed than the motif of mankind in decline?

[Anonymous No.13889908]

>>13888844
>Einstein
>long dead
6/10 OP I giggled and spilled my drink

[Anonymous No.13889915]

>>13889871
It baffles my mind how imbeciles always expect there to be a study for everything and fail to realize that conducting such a study let alone publishing is near impossible and it's not a hornet's nest any one wants to kick regardless. Nothing makes people foam at the mouth more than saying sexual activity in any form may have physiological repercussions.

[Anonymous No.13889923]

>>13889725
We could have been gods. Instead we decided to become cumbrains.

[Anonymous No.13889930]

>>13888928
>When petty people rule the world, wise people lay low and bide their time

[Anonymous No.13889967]

>>13889894
Could you rephrase, i dont think i get what you mean

[Anonymous No.13889997]

>>13888844
>Prominent "geniuses" of our time are Stephen Hawking or Bill Gates, both known for anything but their works.
what the fuck did you mean by this

[Anonymous No.13890002]

>>13889997
They aren't geniuses, midwit.

[Anonymous No.13890008]

>>13888928
I just want to take this opportunity to point out that IQ tests cap out at 160, some even already at 145. Anyone who gives you a result above 160 can be considered to be unreliable, and Langan, when pressed, admits so himself. In psychometrics your results depend on being measured against the performance of other people, and there simply aren't enough people beyond the point of 160 for any results to be reliable. If a score is given anyhow, usually it is given in terms of percentages or SDs (standard deviations). If there is a score given, it is given with a SD of 15 points (except for 160+, where this is not possible).

Sometimes you see these absurd scores and they result from either experimental (read: unreliable) tests specifically for genius ranges or tests that use a different SD. Cattell for example used a SD of 24, which would heavily inflate your score.

[Anonymous No.13890013]

>>13890002
they are both known for their works. but i'm sure you're much smarter than stephen hawking :)

[Anonymous No.13890030]

>>13890013
Ad populum argument veering into an ad hominem. One thing is painfully obviously from your post, it's that you have low to average intelligence to have seriously written it.

[Anonymous No.13890042]

>>13890013
>muh accomplishments
Impressive to a midwit.

[Anonymous No.13890052]

>>13889997
Stephen Hawking and Bill Gates are people of high IQ, probably in the genius territory or at least extremely intellectually gifted, and are known as geniuses, but largely due to reasons that are secondary due to them actually being geniuses.

>>13890013
Bill Gates is known as the CEO of Microsoft. This is not the result of applied genius. Stephen Hawking is a published physicist, but his work is largely of subpar importance in the field of physics. He is mostly popular for his unique condition and media activism.

[Anonymous No.13890080]

>>13889728
That's not what I meant. Most coding monkeys will be replaced by automation in a few years.

[Anonymous No.13890084]

>>13888844
There's so much wrong with this post. For one thing, the past is extended. Because the past is much bigger than the future and we can evaluate it in hindsight, we are able to see clearly who its geniuses were. In the present they are less detectible.

Second of all, who do you think are designing quantum computers, general adversarial networks and the like? These advances are not sexy, so you do not notice them.

I can name a few geniuses off the top of my head: Ian Goodfellow, David Deutsch, Steven Wolfram. Unless you are a specialist in their corresponding fields, you probably wouldn't have heard of them.

Thirdly, it was easier to be a genius in the past because there was more to discover and less knowledge to learn. The set of things you could discover was larger. Over centuries it becomes harder and harder to be original as millions of people iterate over the same lines of inquiry, repeat the same thoughts with small variations, and so on.

[Anonymous No.13890089]

>>13890084
>calls OP wrong
>ends up providing arguments for OP
?

[Anonymous No.13890090]

>>13890080
You don't understand automation.
>. Because the past is much bigger than the future
bigger than the present I meant

[Anonymous No.13890098]

>>13889522
ngl, this is pretty sad

[Anonymous No.13890103]

>>13890089
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.13890107]

>>13890089
What I'm saying is people with the same general level of intelligence as a genius of the past will be more likely to accomplish less now than if they were born then. That does not make them any less of a genius.

[Anonymous No.13890108]

>>13890090
Coping you won't cut it, code monkey?

[Anonymous No.13890110]

>>13889522
>dude I can do this specific task really gud, therefore I smart! big money bags prove it. dis what smart people do.

[Anonymous No.13890111]

>>13890084
This is a post grounded in reality! You must read things not located on this site solely with your spare time! :3

A breath of fresh air.

[Anonymous No.13890120]

>>13890110
Yeah, they should quit their jobs and write philosophy no one will read, and then die of alcoholism.

[Anonymous No.13890122]

>>13890103
OP isn't saying that there are no longer people with genius level intelligence. He is saying that the social phenomenon of the genius is a thing of the past, due to people being highly specialized and slowly chopping away at chunks of knowledge instead of revolutionizing entire fields and ways of thinking. This leads to the genius being replaceable, and their work to be able to be taken over and done by the 'merely' intellectually gifted, who collectively outshine the genius. Thus the methodology of progress in fields of knowledge has substantially shifted and one would have to reconsider how one individual of extreme intelligence could again find a way to make themselves known, to fill a role only the individual can fill, if this is possible at all.

[Anonymous No.13890125]

>>13890111
Upvoted both of you fine scholars and gentlemen. This is worthy of being gilded.

[Anonymous No.13890128]

>>13890120
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.13890129]

>>13890107
see >>13890122

OP said the age of geniuses is over, not geniuses are over.

[Anonymous No.13890133]

>>13890120
Geniuses wouldn't despair but would make use of their free time. Your post reeks of projection.

[Anonymous No.13890134]

>>13890110
That's what he is saying, yes :3

Now to be fair to any opposing side (not yours, since you're basically restating his statement in a dumb way), there ARE definitely ways to make money without any specific skills like that.

But, knowledge actually is a specific skill. The thing you have to realize about companies and organizations is that you aren't going to go in there at the top of the chain ALREADY. You may have some useful skills, but you don't have THEIR terminology, THEIR processes, or THEIR business model at hand, so no matter your preparation and training, you will have to work upwards considerably, even if you want to be a manager (hence why they have assistant manager).

Anyway, he is correct in some ways, but incorrect in others. Being able to sell things is also important for pretty much every job and your life, so if you can land a good sales job, then do it. (please note: there are 10000s of bad sales jobs, you have to do some looking). :3

[Anonymous No.13890141]

>>13890129
Geniuses were raised in environments that degenerated their being into coomers. All those big brain questions gone with you know what.

[Anonymous No.13890144]

>>13890133
Geniuses are well known for despairing. Beyond three standard deviations of IQ (i.e. 145+) mental illnesses are starting to become extremely prevalent. This is why in the past we had social institutions in place to basically babysit these people. These institutions no longer exist, as geniuses are no longer valued.

[Anonymous No.13890154]

>>13890134
>there ARE definitely ways to make money without any specific skills like that.
No way!
>The thing you have to realize about companies and organizations is that you aren't going to go in there at the top of the chain ALREADY
Groundbreaking observation.
>he is correct in some ways, but incorrect in others
Deep.


You're by far the least qualified person to participate in this thread. Please leave. Nobody needs your Reddit tier observations.

[Anonymous No.13890157]

>>13890125
I mean, I wasn't being sarcastic or anything.

He's being realistic.

[Anonymous No.13890163]

>>13890129
>>13890122
Which is wrong. Very, very wrong.

There isn't the amount of information out there that you think there is.

I am so sick of this stupid internet culture, which has no respect for miraculous existences, a higher appreciation for materialistic mentalities than necessary, and a general overestimation of our technological capabilities.

You aren't living forever, kid. Sorry :3

[Anonymous No.13890177]

>>13890154
Is your contribution to this thread greentexting or restating people's statements in a retarded way?

Are you just the stupidest person ever, a troll, or you genuinely want people to know you can't think for yourself? You are the singularity, the epitome of nothingness. You have no mentalities or opinions towards anything whatsoever. You are void of all brain activity except for greentexting.

I can't believe it has come to this. :3

[Anonymous No.13890180]

>>13890133
How am I the one projecting? I'm not hear claiming I'm a genius or that I have some well paying job thanks to my intelligence. No, I'm on the same boat as you losers. You are the one who started projecting, because I told you smart people find their way in life, and don't bother with silly outdated practices like writing literature and philosophy. Sure, I enjoy both of these, and I wish they were more relevant, but let's not make delusions where the real smart people are.

And what do they do in their free time? Probably spending time with their family in a the comforting of the beautiful home they build, because they had the forethought and intelligence to know how the real world works at a young age.

[Anonymous No.13890182]

>>13888948
imagine saving a picture of a random youtuber to post on a forum about literature. buddy, you might just have an obsession

[Anonymous No.13890185]

>>13890180
You have little idea of what geniuses are actually like, which is understandable, as you say you're part of us losers. Proper geniuses are not just extremely intelligent, they also have highly heterodox personalities. They are fundamentally wired to not "fit in" and to search for new ways to think about things, to question rules and authority and to be disagreeable. They also usually have little interest in romantic activity, or are capable of attracting a partner due to their personality.

[Anonymous No.13890187]

>>13889725
classic case of mistaking the cause for the effect. to be a genius, you have to be somewhat autistic, and that tends to limit sexual options

[Anonymous No.13890203]

>>13890187
>tfw autistic but not a genius

[Anonymous No.13890243]

>>13890052
Research what he is doing right now at the Gates foundation and not on what he did at microsoft.

[Anonymous No.13890244]

>>13890185
>Blah blah blah muh tortured genius.

Now that's what projection is.

[Anonymous No.13890251]

>>13890244
I am not a genius. Are you the same guy who is projecting onto that other Anon in this thread?

[Anonymous No.13890267]

>>13890180
>silly outdated practices like literature or philosophy

Society needs this things critically. It's tragic that most of the people who could have done these things need to make money urgently.

[Anonymous No.13890285]

>>13890180
>I'm not hear claiming I'm a genius
Yeah I think most people got a chuckle out of this :3

[Anonymous No.13890339]

>>13889967
Is fear of the end of times or the theme of mankind in decline more prevalent in specific historical civilizations?

[Anonymous No.13890355]

>>13890339
Yes. It's specifically an Abrahamic thing and also a phenomenon that is very prevalent whenever there is an age of decline or suffering. For example, apocalyptic moods were at an all time high during the time of the Black Death in Europe.

[Anonymous No.13890366]

>>13890355
Makes sense, even today with the threat of spasm war apocalyptic moods are high.

[Anonymous No.13890493]

>>13888844
The further we get, the harder new discoveries are. Also, those scientifics never were alone in their discoveries. They had access to previous material and other ideas. Ideas don't appear in a vaccuum. Progress is more diluted between many people today, so no figurehead appear. Who invented the LCD display? Nobody knows. But he might be what you call a "genius".
What's more geniuses, like you say, still exist in new areas, like computer science. It's easy to name a few current geniuses in computer science: Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, Bram cohen, Jed McCaleb, Steve Wosniak, and many others less known.

[Anonymous No.13891246]

>>13888844
It's over insofar as the study of matter. Psychedelic hallucinogens are the next frontier of human inquiry.

[Anonymous No.13891286]

>>13891246
>next frontier
But they've been around forever.

[Anonymous No.13891485]

>>13889402
Epic

[Anonymous No.13891490]

>>13890203
same

[Anonymous No.13891662]

>>13888844
Geniuses still exist, but there's no longer any place for them in society. Look at the kind of people involved with the Manhattan Project - all eccentrics. Even key NASA members were weirdos, like Jack Parsons, who was a Thelemite. Starting in the 70s the nature of bureaucracies changed. They used to be oriented towards production, and though they were stifling in their own ways, they still hired brilliant eccentrics; but then they became more finance-oriented and suddenly there was no place for the mad geniuses. Now the geniuses just live at home in their mothers' basements saying strange things on the internet. No one knows what to do with them. You used to put them in academia but now academia is all about self-marketing, and any kind of new thinking is discouraged. Instead they're essentially writing a long series of annotations on work from the 60s to the 80s. It's just endless recycling of old ideas. Now, in order to get any money for research, you have to compete against people you should be working with to prove you already know what it is you're trying to discover with the research. It's a perfect system for preventing any real progress.

[Anonymous No.13891753]

I think so. The rules have become too rigid, exemplary people used to get high positions early in life but that almost never happens anymore. The world has become excessively standardized and timegated to the point of stagnation.

[Anonymous No.13891777]

>>13888844
There is no need for exceptional individuals in the modern era. The remaining problems for humanity to solve cannot be cracked by one genius, but instead require massive teams of highly trained people. Intelligent yet asocial people are utterly worthless now, which is why the awkward math savants on /sci/ are perpetually jobless and suicidal.

[Anonymous No.13891827]

>>13891777
They used to put all the asocial geniuses together. Now they just put the well-adjusted corporate midwits together, and all they can do is create new weapons, new ways to poison our food, and new useless software that creates at least as many problems as it solves.

[Anonymous No.13891843]

Procedural knowledge, generated in the course of heroic behavior, is not organized and integrated within the group and the individual as a consequence of simple accumulation. Procedure “a,” appropriate in situation one, and procedure “b,” appropriate in situation two, may clash in mutual violent opposition in situation three. Under such circumstances intrapsychic or interpersonal conflict necessarily emerges. When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena. The individual, once capable of coherently integrating competing motivational demands in the private sphere, nonetheless remains destined for conflict with the other, in the course of the inevitable transformations of personal experience. This means that the person who has come to terms with him- or herself—at least in principle—is still subject to the affective dysregulation inevitably produced by interpersonal interaction. It is also the case that such subjugation is actually indicative of insufficient “intrapsychic” organization, as many basic “needs” can only be satisfied through the cooperation of others.

[Anonymous No.13891851]

>>13891843
I strongly disagree.

[Anonymous No.13891862]

>>13891851
take some klonopin

[Anonymous No.13892046]

>>13889071
He tells people to pursue science and technology

[Anonymous No.13892090]

>>13888844
People like Einstein or whoever probably had tons of people shitting on them for not being true intellectual when they were alive.

[Anonymous No.13892108]

>>13891862
kek

[Anonymous No.13892119]

>>13889725
isaac newton, da vinci and michelangelo were all gay, per their own writings

[Anonymous No.13892153]

>>13892119
Source on Newton?

[Anonymous No.13892466]

>>13888922
What a dumbass image. None of the people in the right category are remotely comparable in terms of influence to those in the left category. In addition, the first quote is *complimenting* philosophers.

[JN !!vXXhA/qzhjm No.13892584]

>>13888844
When everyone's smart & well-educated, nobody's a genius

[Anonymous No.13892791]

>>13890084
>Thirdly, it was easier to be a genius in the past because there was more to discover and less knowledge to learn.
Brainlet take and empirically false. Murray's Human accomplishment had a few parts I disagree with but it clearly shows that in every field extreme accomplishment is best predicted by extreme accomplishment in the preceding generation or century, and that downward frequency of genius is random. If anything genius begets genius.
This retardation is a sort of intellectual malthusianism. There isn't a fixed amount of things to accomplish, and previous accomplishment typically opens up many more opportunities of further achievement.

[Anonymous No.13892845]

>>13892119
Newton was celibate and wanted a roastie.
Michelangelo was never proven to be anything. Muh muscular women isn't an argument.
Da Vinci was probably fucking everything in a ten mile radius around him.

[Anonymous No.13892854]

>>13889189
Start your own business retard.

>"but i can't because..."
Then live in the hell you chose. Guess you're not so fucking smart after all.

You know what the guy who invented the fast method for sequencing human DNA did? He patented it, sold it, and now owns a luxury yacht with a custom laboratory on it so he can work whenever he wants, even if he's on holidays.

You CAN have everything.

Well, maybe not YOU, but there you go.

[Anonymous No.13893026]

>>13890187
Exactly. Just like those studies that say that one of the things that help maintain social ties i to show oneself as a cheerful individual, instead of doing the opposite and see that having functional social ties brings happiness.
It's a "just don't be depressed lmao" type of blindness.

[Anonymous No.13893031]

>>13889298
A real genius does not care about this.

[Anonymous No.13893037]

>>13892119
This is historical revisionism. Stop reading Dan Brown and Isaacason, retard. There is nothing to support any of them being homosexual and all were devoutly religious.

[Anonymous No.13893116]

>>13892845
Gay suspicion is autist erasure.

[Anonymous No.13893121]

>>13888844
The superiority comolex of lit users is disgusting. No lit user has done anything noteworthy in years of this board existence and yet you feel like you are in another catheogory of humanity. We are all ordinary. We are garbage.

[Anonymous No.13893128]

>>13888928
Langan did write an über-autistic system of Aristotelian metaphysics relying on modern mathematics. If he had done something similar in the 18th century people on /lit/ would have called him an underrated genius.
Now I agree he's coming a bit late to the metaphysics party but he's hardly an example of high-IQ person that just games the system.

[Anonymous No.13893160]

>>13889189
My life improved dramatically once I stopped trying to live for the world and started living for myself. Granted I don't have genius IQ but I've always been above average and I always was an intellectual ( in the sense that I'm constantly looking for more knowledge), and coming from a very poor and uneducated family, I had to endure a lot of pressure to "succeed in life", whatever that meant. It got so bad that I started suffering from severe depression almost to the point of suicide, and stayed as a NEET for almost 4 years. Truly the darkest years of my life.
I think there's always this massive pressure towards smart people to fix the issues of the world or make major discoveries, especially to those on the top of the intelectual hierarchy like yourself. That being said, you're still human, an individual with desires. Most importantly, egotistical (and here I'm using the stinerian definition of egoism, not the commonly associated interpretation of hedonistic and apathic selfishness) desires. It could be good for your well-being if you started focusing on those things a little bit instead of trying to be the new Einstein. It worked for me and eventually it branched out into my desire to help others, even if it meant only doing so in a more humble and personal way.
Maybe everything I said were silly self-help platitudes or stuff that you already knew, but hey, just trying to help.

[Anonymous No.13893199]

>>13888844
Geniuses are still around, but their names aren't as echoed as in the past because they have been assimilated by the capitalist machine.
Instead of knowing the name of the people who work on countless new medical breakthroughs or technological dev, you now associate the achievement with the name of the company or the CEO

[Anonymous No.13893216]

>>13888844
>Scientific progress was often not the result of cooperative projects, but the revolution of a few talents.
You're a fucking idiot and your understanding of history is shallow and pretentious.

[Anonymous No.13894133]

>>13893160
No, your post is appreciated. I come from a similar background so I feel this urge to become a career person, do something for my community, use the great gifts that I have been given etc. very much. It took me some time, but eventually I realized that us lower class people have a very distorted idea of what it is like to be rich, and what it takes, and that working your ass off will not get you there, nor do you really want to get there. If I ever have children I would not wish for them to grow up bourgeois, there are no worse and more broken people I have met in my life than the children of industrialists.

That being said, even when I am looking at it egoistically, I am still presented with the same dilemma. I refuse to wageslave, and personality wise I do not fit in with many groups that would make a relaxed life easier (I am low in conscientousness, low in agreeableness and particularly have a problem with hypocrisy). My dream would be to become an artist primarily and an idependent philosopher secondarily, with the ability to delve into different fields of research whereever I see fit. If I can do it and pull it off, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.13894179]

Sorry, I've just been livin the neet life, but now at age 23, soon 24, I'm moving to an apartment of my own paid with autismbux—but I ain't bringing my computer and only my 70+++ unread books. After a year of that I'll bring my computer and start making ground breaking music. Then, at 30+, I'll write a multitude of philosophical essays with my unparalleled autodidactism. On the side I'll work part-time—thanks to my >autism.
>the new aristocracy
>assburger monies
thanks unfulfilled wagecuck peasants

[Anonymous No.13894794]

>>13894179
enjoy depression

[Anonymous No.13894810]

>>13888844
>The history of mankind is marked and pervaded by the flashes of genius. Scientific progress was often not the result of cooperative projects, but the revolution of a few talents.
Guess how I know you read one kind of history.

[Anonymous No.13895132]

>>13894810
because you disagree :)

[Anonymous No.13895797]

>>13892119
And also da vinci was a pedophile

[Anonymous No.13895832]

>>13895797
based

[Anonymous No.13895895]

>>13892466
>in terms of influence
the bottom two have tremendous influence on public opinion

[Nelanon No.13895899]

>>13888844
>Is the age of geniuses over?
There are always going to be geniuses. Even though it may not seem like it, the average IQ level today is a lot higher than it used to be and most people now have at least some semblance of intellect: geniuses just don't stand out as much as they used to.

[Anonymous No.13895908]

>>13889189
Some monks were geniuses, dude. They weren't all holy fools. Anyway I feel the same way. I was misguided my entire life and raised in a broken home. Now I'm 24 with a bachelors in basket weaving and don't know what to do with my life. My work history is shit.

[Anonymous No.13895942]

>>13895908
Yes and so were artists. But both artists and monks tend to generally pursue ends for which a genius IQ is not needed.

[Anonymous No.13895968]

>>13895942
I don't mean to sound condescending, but the artists and monks that had the impact that OP is talking about most likely had genius IQ. To retain, understand, and write about the history, anthropology, and theology for a good monk is extremely difficult. Being a polymath like the artists of renaissance Europe would be just as hard. I'll give you that the average IQ for these professions are lower, though.

[Anonymous No.13896641]

>>13895968
A few sure, but there are many prominent artists and monks who probably were no geniuses. Holy people like the Buddha or Jesus for example, nothing about them screams necessarily genius. Picasso or van Gogh probably weren't either.

[Anonymous No.13896662]

>>13896641
What this, by the way, however also points to, is that our conception of a genius might be very much mistaken. It obviously tends to strongly correlate with high intelligence and creativity, but there are probably many people with merely high and not extreme intelligence (famously Richard Feynman had an IQ of 125) who are considered geniuses, or who are considered geniuses for works that are not strictly dependent on intelligence. Similarly there are many, many people with an IQ of 160+ in this world, however few of them ever produce something worthwhile and historical.

The Ancients had this idea of genius being something that possesses you, something external that takes place in you and compels you. I find this intuition to be quite justified. After all, extreme intelligence allows you to do many great things, but at the end of the day what you need is not just mere computing power, but a certain way to look at the world and approach it.

This is also why I regard artists and holy people to be a particular kind of genius, as these two ways of life are defined by valuing the right approach to the world over all else.

[Anonymous No.13896678]

>>13889923
God created Man, and Man created Coomer.

[Anonymous No.13896815]

>>13889189
>my IQ consistently tests in the 145-160 range
how many times were you evaluated to be able to say that?

[Anonymous No.13896983]

>>13889189
IQ is a measure of being able to do stupid problems quickly. Nothing worth doing can be done in 2 hours. Maybe consider you are doing the best you could have and your superior IQ does not mean your life will be superior to your peers.

[Anonymous No.13897516]

>>13895895
In terms of influence on their respective fields

[Anonymous No.13897896]

>>13889291
>Name a great figure since the World Wars.

They haven't all been established yet. That era has barely ended.

[Anonymous No.13898189]

>>13896815
4 times + 1 Mesa online test but I don't think the latter counts.

[Anonymous No.13898496]

>>13889189
lmao brainlet

[Anonymous No.13898515]

>>13895895
Nye hasn't since that embarrassing TV show, even Reddit turned on him.
Tyson and Dawkins before he got #canceled for dunking on Islam I'd agree.

[Anonymous No.13898612]

>>13898189
but why did you get evaluated so often?
(and the mesa test effectively doesn't count)

[Anonymous No.13898707]

>>13888844
Fun time:
1) Mass communication media zap consciousness (this form included).
2) Ease of access to fundamental resources ennervates the people that are incapable of selling their labor the fire they need to be forced to sell their intellectual products.
3) No market for intellectual products, as per 2.
4) I think you vastly underestimate how many people are as intelligent as the geniuses of old. There is a very large number of people that can read Kant with ease and dismiss some of his ideas and formulate their own, however, no one is interested in doing so because the incentive structure isn't there.
5) Hyper mobility of the hyper wealthy killed all incentive for producing high art. This is VASTLY underestimated in terms of both impact and scale, but it's a really simple way of looking at it. Where are the palaces? Gone. Why? Because the hyper wealthy have a series of nice houses. Where are the grand local churches, asps, and donations to art to support one's own culture? Gone. The hyper wealthy, or those that have capital, no longer feel allegiances to their cultures and thus feel no incentive to fund them to make them grand, because they can fly and be part of any culture.
6) Cheapness of everything allows for mass-dissemination of shit. If every post here cost $1 to make, imagine the disparity in quality between what you see now and would could be. Same concept with the cost of paper vs digital.
7) Citations are similar to 6, but also, having a democratic currency ensures you get moderately good results, not astronomically insightful.

[Anonymous No.13898712]

I have some legitimate geniuses in my family and they either became womanizing conmen or killed themselves. I think there is the same amount of geniuses today, but there are fewer outlets for them. Also, many of them are working in research that is not accessible to the public. They're designing confidential military shit and keeping to themselves. The age of the public genius is over.

[Anonymous No.13898720]

>>13898612
Twice as a child, once as an adult out of interest and once as part of a psychological assessment. The Mensa online test was very close to my RL results btw.